4 ms·

GNU Affero license changes that: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html "It [Affero GPL License] has

GNU Affero license changes that: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html "It [Affero GPL License] has one added requirement: if you run the program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the program that it's running."

orik 13y ago
And if OpenSSL had been licensed with a GNU Affero license, we'd all be running something else.
muyuu 13y ago
AGPL is not the same as plain GPL. The vast majority of the code with a licence from the GPL family is not AGPL, but GPLv2, GPLv3 or LGPL. I understand the reasoning behind AGPL and on the surface it seems like a good idea, to stop the parasitic behaviour many have towards FOSS. But there are many situations where you have very legit reasons to avoid it. Even in this case, AGPL would put you in a delicate position where you need to immediately disclose the changes you made without respecting the non-disclosure period for mitigation. It's a licence that tries to solve the problem of the GPL going obsolete when many companies no longer distribute software, but rather services based on the software (like Google or Facebook) and they can basically get away with not giving anything back at all to the community work they built upon. But this is very hard to regulate and as a result AGPL is often so cumbersome that AGPL-licensed code is strongly avoided, and it's also extremely hard to enforce when the service simply doesn't release any code or software.
- judk 13y ago
  It is not true that AGPL is incompatible with responsible disclosure. Responsible disclosure timelines mean that the source code would be published long before anyone had time to complain about the source not being available. Enforcement is hard, but AGPL is strictly stronger than GPL which doesn't evenninvitr enforcement on sharing server code. Yes, many companies avoid AGPL software. That isn't a problem for AGPL-leaning authors, that's the point.
  - eli 13y ago
    Even if (probably) no one has time to complain about it, you'd still technically be violating the license by withholding code, right?
    - comex 13y ago
      Probably. AGPL says you need to "provid[e] access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software", and GPLv3 also seems to require digital distribution of software to include immediate source access. GPLv2's source requirement, on the other hand, can be satisfied by a "written offer" to provide the source no matter how the binary is distributed; I think this is (along with apathy) how Apple gets away with taking months to publish GPLv2 sources.
  - muyuu 13y ago
    That exposes whoever does this to uncharted legal territory. There are many reasons why AGPL is used in extremely few projects of any relevance, compared to other GPL licences, or BSD, MIT, etc.
Dylan16807 13y ago
I severely question the enforceability of the AGPL. If they're not distributing they don't need to accept the license in the first place.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  So does this mean users don't need to accept EULAs?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    EULAs are largely a farce but in theory you have to accept the EULA to accept the software. As far as I know GPL/AGPL comes in at a different point entirely.
    - judk 13y ago
      Please research what the "L" in "GPL" means. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html Software is protected by copyright by default, meaning you can't make a copy. A license is a limited waiver of copyright that grants permission to make a copy, if the conditions of the license are met.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        You're not the one making a copy when you're just accepting the software to run.
- muyuu 13y ago
  Usage licenses are enforceable. At least in the US for sure, and the DMCA builds on that. Now, to prove that someone is running AGPL software and that they have modified it, that seems pretty hard in many scenarios.
- slashdotaccount 13y ago
  AGPL is based on modification rather than public performance or use. You don't have permission to modify copyrighted things by default so if you do modify, then you either comply with the AGPL or violate copyright law.

orik 13y ago

And if OpenSSL had been licensed with a GNU Affero license, we'd all be running something else.

muyuu 13y ago

AGPL is not the same as plain GPL. The vast majority of the code with a licence from the GPL family is not AGPL, but GPLv2, GPLv3 or LGPL. I understand the reasoning behind AGPL and on the surface it seems like a good idea, to stop the parasitic behaviour many have towards FOSS. But there are many situations where you have very legit reasons to avoid it. Even in this case, AGPL would put you in a delicate position where you need to immediately disclose the changes you made without respecting the non-disclosure period for mitigation. It's a licence that tries to solve the problem of the GPL going obsolete when many companies no longer distribute software, but rather services based on the software (like Google or Facebook) and they can basically get away with not giving anything back at all to the community work they built upon. But this is very hard to regulate and as a result AGPL is often so cumbersome that AGPL-licensed code is strongly avoided, and it's also extremely hard to enforce when the service simply doesn't release any code or software.

judk 13y ago
It is not true that AGPL is incompatible with responsible disclosure. Responsible disclosure timelines mean that the source code would be published long before anyone had time to complain about the source not being available. Enforcement is hard, but AGPL is strictly stronger than GPL which doesn't evenninvitr enforcement on sharing server code. Yes, many companies avoid AGPL software. That isn't a problem for AGPL-leaning authors, that's the point.
- eli 13y ago
  Even if (probably) no one has time to complain about it, you'd still technically be violating the license by withholding code, right?
  - comex 13y ago
    Probably. AGPL says you need to "provid[e] access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software", and GPLv3 also seems to require digital distribution of software to include immediate source access. GPLv2's source requirement, on the other hand, can be satisfied by a "written offer" to provide the source no matter how the binary is distributed; I think this is (along with apathy) how Apple gets away with taking months to publish GPLv2 sources.
- muyuu 13y ago
  That exposes whoever does this to uncharted legal territory. There are many reasons why AGPL is used in extremely few projects of any relevance, compared to other GPL licences, or BSD, MIT, etc.

Dylan16807 13y ago

I severely question the enforceability of the AGPL. If they're not distributing they don't need to accept the license in the first place.

jnbiche 13y ago
So does this mean users don't need to accept EULAs?
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  EULAs are largely a farce but in theory you have to accept the EULA to accept the software. As far as I know GPL/AGPL comes in at a different point entirely.
  - judk 13y ago
    Please research what the "L" in "GPL" means. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html Software is protected by copyright by default, meaning you can't make a copy. A license is a limited waiver of copyright that grants permission to make a copy, if the conditions of the license are met.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      You're not the one making a copy when you're just accepting the software to run.
muyuu 13y ago
Usage licenses are enforceable. At least in the US for sure, and the DMCA builds on that. Now, to prove that someone is running AGPL software and that they have modified it, that seems pretty hard in many scenarios.
slashdotaccount 13y ago
AGPL is based on modification rather than public performance or use. You don't have permission to modify copyrighted things by default so if you do modify, then you either comply with the AGPL or violate copyright law.